Slashdot Mirror
The Golden Age of Infinite Music
Over at the BBC, music journalist John Harris speculates on what may become of the music business now that we have entered the golden age of infinite music. "I've just poured the music-related contents of my brain into a book, and I would imagine that 30-ish years worth of knowledge about everyone from Funkadelic to The Smiths has probably cost me a five-figure sum, a stupid amount spent on music publications, and endless embarrassed moments spent trying to have a conversation with those arrogant blokes who tend to work in record shops. Last weekend, by contrast, I had a long chat about music with the 16-year-old son of a friend, and my mind boggled. At virtually no cost, in precious little time and with zero embarrassment, he had become an expert on all kinds of artists, from English singer-songwriters like Nick Drake and John Martyn to such American indie-rock titans as Pavement and Dinosaur Jr. Though only a sixth-former, he seemingly knew as much about most of these people as any music writer. Like any rock-oriented youth, his appetite for music is endless, and so is the opportunity..."
I know this is an unpopular opinion and... my own behavior makes me a hypocrite here, but let's stop pretending that piracy is awesome and great just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.
Making music--good music--takes time and resources. Time that you can't really make money on, and instruments and (nowadays) computer equipment that is not free. Unless you sell the music you're essentially losing money, in most situations. And no matter what some slashdotters CLAIM, yes, many people will not buy albums at all just because they can get them off soulseek or bittorrent or, god forbid, limewire.
If I had to wager I'd suggest the more popular the band, the more they're hurt, relatively, by piracy, with the completely unknowns actually benefiting because then they get exposure--if you haven't yet proved yourself, who is gonna buy your CD? Most stuff is crap. But those that have proved themselves... "hey, I know I like this guy's music but I'm a cheapskate so I'm going to download that anyway." So the unknowns probably benefit in getting a reputation and thus being able to sell CDs. The semi-knowns, the guys most people won't ever recognize and aren't played on the radio, probably hurt the most because they tend to be on smaller independent labels and don't get the big gigs and such well-known groups do--and their CDs are generally less visible, too, this day and age sometimes sold only over the internet.
Now, I have bought CD albums I'd downloaded that I wouldn't have if I'd not. Yes, that happens. But most people just want free mp3s on their portable music player, they aren't concerned about supporting the artist or even having a pressed CD as a collector's item or for preservation. But quit pretending that one counterpoint on the piracy issue or the fact that the effects of piracy are exaggerated by the RIAA especially for famous bands means piracy is universally a "good" thing. For many artists, it's not.
I know this is an unpopular opinion and... my own behavior makes me a hypocrite here, but let's stop pretending that piracy is awesome and great just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.
Piracy is awesome and great because copyright no longer serves to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Or do you really think the Berne Convention's life + 50 minimum accomplishes that goal?
In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70.
More likely, you'll be dead and your children might see it fall into the public domain.
I saw "might" because if the artist signed away their rights to a corporation, your grand-children will be the first to see it become public.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70.
I recently gained a new perspective on this when I reflected on the following:
Let's say a 20 yo composes a new song. It's not unlikely that the person might live to be 90. That's 70 years right there. Add another 70 after the composer's death and you have 140 years of "protection". That means a work entering the public domain this afternoon would have had to be composed in 1869 -- four years after the close of the Civil war, given the current US term of copyright.
Ken Burns wold barely have been able to produce his PBS series as all the letters he quoted would have just been coming off copyright at the time he was working on the series.
I want to know where this idea has come from that making music should make you a millionaire.
Before the 20th century it didn't. Even some of the most respected composers in history earned only enough for a comfortable life, and the talented musicians could only expect a livable wage. Somehow, though, somewhere in the 20th century came the concept that every single mediocre pop act should earn 6 figure sums, and the "best of them" should be earning millions, into eternity.
Traditionally, artists were expected to earn their crust from live shows- something which is not only not harmed by piracy, but actually bolstered by it. And traditionally, recordings and covers and such (insofar as they happened) were sold at only a little above cost.
And somehow, despite this lack of monetary incentive, magnificent music still got made. Musicians made music because it was what they loved to do, and the music scene was a lot better for it.
So enough of the painful regurgitation of the myth that "if you don't pay £10 for an electronic download of the latest album, music itself can't happen". When the music industry returns to a realistic business model, piracy will end.
The smaller bands will make more money from gigs and merchandise from the fans that actually support them. The local bands will get more notice and the record industry will become a small advertising house.
What is a "local band" when people discover their music through the internet?
The internet equivalent to a local band is a band that is big on whichever sources you use, i.e. myspace, Jamendo etc. It's the bands that your friends have found and link you to. For practical purposes that's a huge difference. Thanks to the internet, I've discovered bands that I love, who will NEVER EVER tour the UK. Why? Firstly because they may be playing a relatively niche genre of music, and would not be able to pull in enough people to make it worthwhile, even if they are excellent in that niche. Secondly because being a "part time hobby" band is pretty incompatible with touring.
Music will become what it should be for most - a part time hobby. Lets also be honest here, it does not matter how little you people artists... music will ALWAYS be made (and people will always play football).
You want to see bands live, and you're happy for all musicians to be part-time? Ok, say I blow a couple of weeks' holiday to tour... I'm not going to be touring anywhere near you, am I?
I write/record/rehearse/perform in my spare time. I know I would be able to write far more, far better music if I was dedicated to it full-time. I have the utmost respect for those willing to make that leap, because it's quite a gamble and a sacrifice they are making, especially in this age. Is that good for music? Do you think a band like Radiohead could exist if they weren't 100% dedicated to it? You risk advocating quantity over quality.
If you're going to make this argument, please use words precisely. What you mean when you say "buy" is actually "donate". Almost by the definition of capitalism, if you are "selling" to somebody who doesn't have to pay you (in fact, probably won't) then you're actually operating a charity and relying on donations to survive.
This isn't necessarily a bad model - as you point out, it has worked before. But it resulted in a stifling and uninnovative musical environment (good for religious folks though). If we're going down that road, society should be entirely clear about it to the musicians of the future. If a child ever says, "when I grow up I'm going to be a musician", we need to tell them - no you're not. Being a musician is a hobby that you do in your spare time.
And if we're going to do that for music, then really we should be consistent and say that for every job that is based on people getting paid for copyrighted works. For instance, if that child says "oh well. in that case I want to make video games!" - same thing. No you're not. You will get a job where you are paid per hour of your labor like the rest of the world.
Ditto for movies, books .... who knows what else in future.
But in reality, nobody wants to take that position. You claim you do, because "people have made music without being paid before", but that logic doesn't really generalize to other things like movies or video games. Music might well survive through the power of the amateur, but the rest probably won't. The popularity of big budget movies and games strongly suggests that most people are not willing to let it go just yet.
And that is why I think you are wrong.
I was right with you until this point. ... hence, these sports stars are in fact worth the millions they are
paid.
The definition of what something is worth is what someone else will pay
This is a pure economic equation: The sport franchise only needs N players* and they have revenue of R. Roughly speaking, the owner of the team is willing to pay "(R - other-expense) / N" per player.
Again, basic economics disagrees with you: there are N seats in the arena and G games. They can't manufacture more, so they are trying to determine the maximum price to sell N * G tickets each season. If you find the price steep that simply means that N * G people** in your area value tickets more than you do.
On a related note, this is why movie stars get paid so much: the movie only needs one star and the production company expects to be able to make millions in revenue, and the belief that certain actors will generate greater revenue. Contrast with stage actors who don't get paid millions due to the limited income on a nightly basis. The important fact out of this is that we don't have to worry that without copyright acting will die. Tom Cruise, on the other hand will have to choose between not working, working as an actor for a lot less, or finding alternate employment.
* For most businesses when they have extra money they can hire more people to try to do more of whatever they do. For a sports franchise they are prohibited from hiring more people, so they instead start to bid more for the better talent, driving the price per person up.
** Where some people value it so much that they purchase multiple games up to and including season's pass.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
The first problem is the terminology: "the music industry" does not have a problem with piracy. The "music recording and publishing industry" has a problem with piracy. Note that it's the Recording Industry Association of America that is talking. The recording industry keeps saying that the "music industry" is in trouble, but it turns out it's just the recording industry that's in trouble: the music industry revenue is up.
So if you're interested in helping to solve all this, the first thing is to take back the language: the music industry is not only alive and well - it's growing. People are spending more on music then ever before, it's just the recording industry that needs to adapt. (imho, they can adapt by following in the footsteps of the dinosaur and extinct already...)
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
This only holds true in a free and fair market: where, given a free choice, people spend their money on Britney Spears, etc.
The reality is a music market where in practice a cartel of music companies limit choice to maximise the money made on certain artists. They prefer, instead of running 10,000 artists, to sell 10-100, advertising 10.
Companies like Sony-BMG, etc. ceased contracts with _profitable_bands_, as they maximize their profits when marketing costs are smaller, concentrated on a small number of "superstars". The chosen artist benefitted, but mostly the record companies benefitted; the consumer lost choice, and the bands they would have purchased from lost big-time.
For this reason, I consider the record companies anti-music, and am happy to see them go. Its only the advent of easy copying that makes them divert from this policy.
Similar arguments hold for professional sports, unfortunately.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
But I digress: what I meant to say was that the readily-downloaded media are something of a trap. I think we are going to be left with a whole generation that has no idea what their music is actually supposed to sound like.
So what kind of wooden knobs would you recommend for their ipods?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.